A Critique to 'In Praise of Idlenes' by Bertrand Russell

Bertrand Russell (born on 18 May 1872) was a well-known British philosopher who won noble prize in 1950 because of his writings on social, moral and political subjects. One such writing is “In praise of Idleness”, which was published in 1935. During the period from undeveloped state to industrial revolution, when every landowner considered idleness of own self by the toil of others, there is a need to eradicate these thoughts. As a title suggests, this article discusses the importance of leisure time in everyone life. Although, this article provides basis for good arguments along with personal experiences, good use of structure along with transitions and punctuations, remains focus on claim and uses respectable tone but sometimes he uses sentences that creates doubts in mind of reader but he still convinces the audience about his main idea.    

In his article, Russell discusses the problem faced by people who think that work is virtuous. Moreover, he says that the idleness of one person is only due to the whole gospel of work/labor and this needs to be eradicated, otherwise that will cause war and economic instability. He describes the culture of both classes by saying that along with women, men of rich families also not take part in any work. By presenting his arguments and problems, he also presents solution to the problems, that shows forethought of the writer before any question will arise in the mind of a reader. In whole, he wants the reader to know about the importance of leisure in daily life.    

It can be argued that this article is written to show opinion and that can be made convincing by giving proper arguments that are coherent. He uses the claim of policy by saying that if proper care is not kept about everyone than economic confusion arises. He uses persuasive tools to persuade his audience like pathos. These all are devices that make the reading effective and Russell has used all of these techniques.    

In the beginning Russell opens up his article by describing a story that catches the reader’s attention. He tries to persuade the reader by saying that he himself was brought up by saying that work is highly virtuous, this shows the author credibility and strengthen his argument. This makes the reader to think that he is writing against the importance of work but providing counter arguments he convinces the reader. For example: for some people work is merely waste of time but in defense of work, Russell made a logical statement that: “As long as a man spends his income, he puts just as much bread into people's mouths in spending as he takes out of other people's mouths in earning”, this describes that he has a credibility to answer the questions of audience. But some people merely to earning for savings which he called as “French peasant”, this use of specific words persuades the reader. These thoughts show that author is unbiased and if he is in defense of leisure than he is also not opposing the importance of work.    

Power holders used the belief of worker that they work only for the interest of their masters and Russell noted this belief of duty of work for masters as “morality of slaves”. Further, he gives solution to this problem that “providing services rather than commodities” should be enough to know the duty of work for the satisfaction of oneself. The specific and eyecatching use of words attracts the reader’s attention and persuades him emotionally using pathos.    

By questioning the argument and providing solution he makes the argument more realistic. Also, he tackles the questions of the people who are against his arguments, he says, in view of rich families that poor are only for doing work and what they want from holidays? Russell argues this idea by comparing the economical culture of West and Russia and says that unjust economical culture will lead to war and destruction. This thought of war keeps alive the notion in readers mind that will persuade him to believe the argument of the reader that economic justice and equal pleasure must be kept between poor and rich. Moreover, Russell questions the morality of slave state and using logos by giving example of manufacturing of pins, says that giving rest to people would be thought demoralizing and catches the attention of reader by emotional appeal that this is very insane to think like this about poor. In addition, he gives the solution to this problem by saying that scientific organization of production can reduce the labor of worker and give pleasure to him. This shows that writer provides arguments as well as solutions to what he is saying and provides the sound reason to reader that his argument is valid. Moreover, in convincing a reader on his arguments, Russell used counter arguments and solutions so that whichever question arises in the mind of a reader, he will get the answer/solution. This shows the forethoughts of the writer about which claim he has made. For example, when he says “Leisure is essential to civilization, and in former times leisure for the few was only rendered possible by the labors of the many. But their labors were valuable, not because work is good, but because leisure is good”.    

Moreover, using rhetorical devices he uses the word “Mediterranean sunshine”, that means that revolution is necessary for something good to happen and where there is no sunshine (change), there is no hope for something good to happen. Further, he says that if his arguments make senses than using ethos, he describes that the YCMA will work on his claim, this attracts the reader and persuades them by using credible sources. By using correct punctuations and Aristotle appeals he persuades the audience. He uses ethos, logos and pathos to persuade audience, the credibility of author giving arguments using personal experiences he establishes ethos. As this article is written to persuade audience using logical appeals and giving historical background, he establishes logos, for example, when he gives example of manufacturing of pins and claims that this amount of work can also be done using less hours of work. What make the article more persuasive is that raising those arguments which most people are also likely to think, so Russell says that no worker will say that he enjoys doing manual work, this argument appeals to the emotion of the reader because same thought appears in the mind of the reader and that is pathetical appeal.    

Beside all this, he convinces the audience by giving his claim with data and warrant because without these two things his claim will not be persuasive. He claims that work is not virtuous and his data is; because work doesn’t give pleasure while idleness gives pleasure and his warrant is that pleasure is morality that we should chase for happiness. These all are the positive points: coherence, connections between ideas, Aristotle appeals, arguments with counter arguments, described above, that make the main idea of author convincing.    

Although, there is point in the article that seems to blur his argument. When he says that idleness of one is because of work of others, advancing this, he also says that “leisure is essential for civilization”. This shows that author is supporting the idleness of one over the pleasure of all other, he should make it clear by saying whether he is talking about leisure for one or for all. But despite this he still convinces the audience because of other supports and claims he make. Author has effectively used arguments and strengthen them by using appeals but the title of the article is not coinciding with the main claim he is making. His main claim is to reduce the working hours, equally distributing work and leisure and to develop scientific methods to reduce virtuousness of work but his title suggests that he is praising a person to remain idle. There is a clear difference between idleness and leisure (or pleasure), so author should use a different title for his article.    

Overall, his argument is very persuasive and appealing to senses. He criticizes the virtuousness of work and by giving pre-historic background makes his argument strong. Moreover, his “idleness” is not about to do nothing, but that is about importance of leisure in life to refresh his skills. However, he gives us the main claim but if he suggested us the way that how can we use our idle time than his argument can be more effective. Further, he says that rich people thought that poor are working only for their interests, this idea is showed by Tzu that man’s evil nature and there is a need for laws to regulate good thoughts. He further says that if we work as a goal for pleasure than this can pursue us for happiness and a very strong example for us is Jack Ma. Ma failed many times in life to achieve his targets but he found leisure in following his heart, he succeeded. Moreover, effective use of ethos, pathos and logos also make the main claim very strong and make reader to think parallel to the author’s thoughts. 

Works Cited

• “HSÜN TZU: MAN’S NATURE IS EVIL.” Basic Writings, by Xunzi and Burton Watson, Columbia University Press, 1963, pp. 157–171.
• “In Praise of Idleness.” IN PRAISE OF IDLENESS, by BERTRAND RUSSELL, Routeledge, 1935